Washington Times - YouTube circulates 'unfiltered' war views

Washington Times - YouTube Diaries Circulate 'Unfiltered' Views Of War

Quote:

---

The hardest thing in the world is to leav someone behind for six months, Senior Aircraftman Paul Goodfellow tells a hand-held camera as he crouches in what looks like a bathroom.

"It's not just saying bye for six months," the young member of Britain's Royal Air Force Regiment says on his way to Afghanistan in April 2007. "There's always the thought that maybe I might not come back and maybe we might not see each other again."

Mr. Goodfellow bade farewell to his girlfriend on a beach in South Shields, England, but was keeping in touch with loved ones - and the rest of the world - through a series of daily video diaries on YouTube during his deployment with the No. 51 Squadron in Kandahar province.

The clips gave viewers candid glimpses into the daily life of an RAF gunner. He spoke about his feelings and captured the everyday details of being in the military, such as weapons drills or going on patrol. He shared insights into the people and landscapes around him.

---

The article reports on the use of YouTube by both individual service members as well as MNFI; nothing earth shattering in that respect. However, what startled me were the comments from a journalism professor at the University of Pennsylvania that I have emphasized below.

Quote:

---

One video posted on the YouTube channel for the Multi-National Force in Iraq shows a night raid by members of the Iraqi Security Force in Kirkuk. The group was responding to citizens' tips about the location of an 11-year-old boy being held hostage by a kidnapping cell that was demanding a $100,000 ransom from his father, who works as a mechanic.

The language spoken in the video is Arabic, but the sequence of events is not difficult to understand. The Iraqi soldiers rub the boy's head after rescuing him from his captors and give him a cell phone to call his parents. The clip ends with women crying for joy as they run to him in the night.

Comments on the video, which has been viewed in full more than 8,000 times, are emotive.

"The military is the greatest group of people on the planet, plain and simple," wrote one viewer. Another added: "but this won't make the news."

It's not realistic to expect the mainstream media to devote time to human-interest stories when "the majority [of war] is about violence," said Barbie Zelizer, a journalism professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication.

"I think it's media's responsibility to reflect the bulk, kind of the core of what's going on," she said of the mainstream media's coverage of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "It's not that the media are biased; it's the public isn't particularly supportive of this war so why should the media go and find the one or two videos on YouTube and give them coverage because they give a human aspect?"

---

Because "the majority [of war] is about violence" does that mean if the child had been killed it would be newsworthy?

Secondly, I cannot understand how one can dismiss the MNFI video as a mere “human interest story.” While I have not watched the video in question, the description provided in the article makes it clear that it shows more than just the rescue of a kidnapped child. It demonstrates the level of progress that an Iraqi unit has achieved in conducting successful operations. And, more importantly, it shows that the local population trusts that Iraqi unit enough to provide it with valuable information.

Finally, I thought the media was charged with discovering and reporting what is actually happening in the world regardless of whether or not it is popular. Is the University of Pennsylvania actually teaching journalism students that it is acceptable not to report something because the “the public isn't particularly supportive” of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonSlack

...Finally, I thought the media was charged with discovering and reporting what is actually happening in the world regardless of whether or not it is popular. Is the University of Pennsylvania actually teaching journalism students that it is acceptable not to report something because the “the public isn't particularly supportive” of it?

---

was that the media is not particularly supportive of it...

My obligatory weekly understatement. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonSlack

Is the University of Pennsylvania actually teaching journalism students that it is acceptable not to report something because the “the public isn't particularly supportive” of it?

---

As a J-School product, I can tell you that the "culture" in many undergraduate journalism programs is not only slanted to the left, but also promotes the idea that you can pick and choose what it news; and I attended college at a considerably conservative state school! I'm not familiar with the culture at Penn, but I can probably guess.

The phenomenon in regards to War and Military reporting is what I've dubbed the "leeriness slant"..meaning that reporters, particularly those with little experience reporting and even those with a ton of experience always infer messages inside the articles that would preclude them from being "pro-military" or infer the advocation of the conflict. Maybe that is what objectivity is in their own mind; but also not written in support of the military forces of THEIR OWN NATION! An example headline/tagline infused with "leeriness slant":

U.S. TROOPS CONDUCT RAID
Ten Iraqi civilians and five Americas wounded during mission to capture insurgent leader in Baghdad

The 5 w's are answered, but the reporter CHOSE to include the collateral damage/military casualties in the tagline, as opposed to mentioning the capture of the enemy/success of the mission. Maybe that will be mentioned in the Article, maybe not. But the point is that the journalist and subsequently the editor believe the "news" of the story was the casualties.

I really didn't notice the difference until I interned at an Army PAO office during my senior year. Just the opposite was the case. In fact, the public affairs officer and/or the civilian deputy read EVERY article to ensure that it was pro-Army enough. The PAO once told me that the post Chief of Staff vetted every single article and called him often with comments. I assumed this was going to be the case, but was surprised by the level of scrutiny and detail that was examined. So in that regard, I wouldn't call it true journalism, either. But that is not PAO's job, IMO.
Additionally, it's difficult to work for PAO because Soldiers and Leaders alike were reluctant to go "on the record" saying anything close to controversial, which is understandable. My first assignment as a PAO intern was to report on EIB training taking place at one of the Infantry Battalions on post. I had several Officers and NCOs telling me in private that they felt the training was "substandard" and they were disappointed...I assured them it was "off the record" and subsequently my article was titled:

62 SOLDIERS RECIEVE COVETED EXPERT INFANTRY BADGE

In reality, the title should have been:

LEADERS DISAPPOINTED WITH SUBSTANDARD TRAINING

But of course, I understand the role of PAO and don't think it's unethical because they work for the Army and are obligated to "tell the Army story"...the way the Army wants it told.

But for civilians, there are of course, no such obligations. The individual journalist and their editor can decide what information is "newsworthy" and what is not. In the same headline that I used as an example for "leeriness slant", the PAO version would have read:

COALITION FORCES CAPTURE INSURGENT LEADER
U.S. and Iraqi Forces detain High Value Target in Baghdad during early morning raid

Which version is the most newsworthy? That's up to the reader to decide. I know what I think, but then again, I'm not leery of our nation's Armed Forces.

The media looks out for our "best interest" by telling us what versions of the truth we want to hear. I would certainly find it depressing to read daily articles that disproved, undermined, or otherwise contradicted my indisputable view of the world. Did you make your conclusions from the youtube vide about Iraq's military capabilities because that's what the video clearly and objectively demonstrates, or because you are predisposed (by your experiences, interests, occupation, etc) to see that in the video?

Quote:

---

It's not realistic to expect the mainstream media to devote time to human-interest stories when "the majority [of war] is about violence," said Barbie Zelizer, a journalism professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication.

---

I think that Barbie misunderstands the frustration. There is no shortage of human interest stories about this war, but most seem to fall into three categories...
1. The suffering of Iraqis
2. The incompetence or unreliability of the ISF
3. Hapless American serfs forced into military service because they had no other options in life, in spite of the limitless opportunity in the US, who inevitably suffer traumatic emotional damage because they were used as pawns in an immoral war

This story, which is apparently regarded as a human interest story (hostage rescue = human interest?), reveals a situation that does not toe the line for one of the themes above. It actually contradicts those themes. Thus it rankles those in the media/academia bubble. I wonder if Barbie knows anyone who is "supportive of this war" or, for that matter, anyone who voted for Reagan in 1984.

All this implies that the job of MSM is to inform. Au contraire, mes amis (did I get that right, Tom?)

The job of newspapers is to sell newspapers; the job of politicians is to get elected.

The sooner you get over it, the happier you'll be.

Me? I'm ecstatic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

I wonder if Barbie knows anyone who is "supportive of this war" or, for that matter, anyone who voted for Reagan in 1984.

---

Unfortunately, no she doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

The media looks out for our "best interest" by telling us what versions of the truth we want to hear.

---

Having viewed the media, worldwide, as a consumer of their product for a great many years and acknowledging a partial truth in what you say, I suggest that today the media in general "looks out for our 'best interest' by telling us what versions of the truth..." they think we want to hear -- or worse and too often, should, in their view, hear...

My suspicion is that, at least here in the US, the senior media mavens convinced themselves -- wrongly IMO -- that they had brought about US withdrawal from Viet Nam and thus had the power to shape events and attempt to continue doing so. While we can recall that Randolph Hearst may or may not have told a photographer "You provide the pictures and I'll provide the war" and say that's proof of media power, I submit that is counterbalanced by Evan Thomas from Newsweek, who said in 2004 that the media "want Kerry to win" and "that's going to be worth maybe 15 points" for Kerry. We are thus confronted with the fact that sans media support, kerry would've gotten only 43% of the 2004 vote... :rolleyes:

I believe that said media power is vastly over rated by many. They like to throw around the word 'hubris' without applying it at home.

Quote:

---

I would certainly find it depressing to read daily articles that disproved, undermined, or otherwise contradicted my indisputable view of the world.

---

Fortunately, I don't think most people have that concern; most seem willing to look at all sides of an issue. Indeed, I think most want to look at all facets. I also sense a frustration on the part of many to have to go to four or five different sources in an attempt to get balance and filter out the bias (from both sides of any dissension). Didn't some wise journalist say the first job is to tell the truth? :confused:

There was a Pew study a couple of years ago that IIRC said something like 20% of Americans wanted more foreign news and 5% wanted more celebrity news. The study noted that the actual presentation by the media more than reversed those figures due to their perception "that's what the public wants." Nominally, anyway -- I'm sure the fact that TV drives the news train and all the TV 'news' crews are owned by entertainment conglomerates has no effect on that decision...

Quote:

---

Did you make your conclusions from the youtube vide about Iraq's military capabilities because that's what the video clearly and objectively demonstrates, or because you are predisposed (by your experiences, interests, occupation, etc) to see that in the video?

---

A fair question. One which could and should also be asked of most media types with respect to their reporting -- and far more intrusively, their editing, grabber headline writing, tag and clip selection. I'd even suggest that if they do not start asking themselves that question and acting upon an honest answer, they'll consign themselves to an irrelevancy even greater than they now have.

The Columbia School of Journalism and its long ago espousal of the attack dog mentality have a lot to answer for...

Ken,

I agree with your statements. Except for my question tagged at the end, my post was said tongue-in-cheek. I just forgot to add the tongue-in-cheek icon. :) There's certainly some space to maneuver in figuring out the extent of the media's influence in public opinion, and the complex love-hate relationship between them. The power of the MSM is definitely undermined by the general public's thirst for information now emboldened by the individualism of the internet. But even that presents its own kind of problems and I would question the WT article's assertion that the interent (youtube specifically) is somehow "unfiltered".

I'm quite surprised anybody perpetrates the myth of fair and balanced media without chuckling. The founding fathers had no use for fair and balanced and rancor and raucous yellow journalism is what they themselves perpetrated. Read some of the work by Benjamin Franklin and what he published. The press was expected and assumed to be a cauldron of evil-hate mixed with a vile stew of ignorance and editorial all cooking over a slow fire of patronage and political intrigue. We have always loved our press, and hated those other guys. This is basic premise of a free press and should be any military minded persons expectation. That yellow bellied liberal loving bifurcated press is the same group of mental-midgets that failed to raise even one fallow issue in logic about attacking Iraq. We use "MSM" as a derogatory slur with an expectation of heaping agenda covered in a sauce of incorrect facts and logical fallacies. Regardless of the political affiliation. Bloggers are no better. And, to be honest that is all how it should be, and I kind of like watching the political rancor and the battlefield of ideas. Where else can you see adults act like pre-schoolers, and then act smug about how ignorant they have been acting?

I think I need lunch.

take over the world... :D

I personally prefer the media in other nations who make no bones what so ever about their political orientation and I'm unsure why US media tries to cop this 'objective' line. Can they truly not know that most people have them (both sides) figured out??? Weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

... I'm unsure why US media tries to cop this 'objective' line...

---

Two names. Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, perpetrated fair and balanced because in their agenda setting they allowed the other side to speak. People never saw that by allowing somebody to take a side that allowed the two of the best broadcasters ever to whack them about the ears. Murrow was likely the most obvious broadcaster in history to tell you what his agenda was. Cronkite wasn't so obvious as to say "I hate...", but he acted on it. I believe that between these two broadcasters and "fair access" laws somebody got this idea in their head about balanced reporting. Never been the case, and never will be, but it is a nice fairy tale.

question is thus, probably "Because collectively and generally they aren't too bright..."

Either that or it's that hubris thing. :o

Journalism could become a legitimate profession were it not for the tendency of news outlets to use the guise of purported objectivity as a marketing gimmick. The so-called journalism profession has the institutions necessary to form a true profession in rather short order. It simply lacks sufficient desire and leadership. There is an educational system in our colleges, similar to the systems that produce lawyers and doctors, and many journalists seem to be guided by a sincere motivation to inform the public. Unfortunately, the educational system seems to be run by ideologues who have bought into their own marketing gimmick and convinced themselves that their slant is objective.

I think you got it right with the hubris thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by selil

Where else can you see adults act like pre-schoolers, and then act smug about how ignorant they have been acting?

---

Parliament? Congress? :D

Or 16.747123 on the new scale... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Parliament? Congress? :D

---

Academia? (Present company excepted. :D)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger

Academia? (Present company excepted. :D)

---

I was wondering when someone would add that....:cool: